Jefferson Frank / Nigel Frank paying invoices late

[northernladyuk]

As I've already said, you're dismissive and patronising and approach every thread (literally, don't you have any hobbies?) with a superior attitude. That you might occasionally be helpful appears to be a side-effect of your primary aim to insert your opinion into everything. Jolly tedious.



Now, on topic; The Agency Regulations exist for a reason. Should any opted-in contractor find themselves being furthered an excuse of non-settlement because the client hasn't paid the agency, they have recourse and should pursue it. You're entitled to opt-in - wanting to shouldn't 'risk' the process in the least unless the agency is a crook so really this is an excellent filter to apply.

Since many people don't stomp around with ill-placed self-assurance, the dismissive attitude of 'Don't bother, it's never done any good' might be enough to make them not try, and they definitely should. Amazes me how content some contractors are to strictly work within the tulipty system rather than try to improve it with the tools available. All that 'experience' just to have a defeatist attitude.

His two hobbies are literally trolling the professional forums and being bummed by strangers in the end cubicle of the gents' at Wigan Wallgate. Just be grateful that you are engaged in the former, and avoid the end cubicle if you're ever caught short at Wigan Wallgate (or to be on the safe side at any station North of Crewe).

[northernladuk]

Coming from the agency side I can tell you this is untrue.

Hasn't happened very often but several times at agencies I have worked at we have ended up paying out. There is always a song and dance, and the agency will take it to the line, but we have backed down several times.

Notably I was at an agency when World Airways went bust. We lost out massively there.

Also often happens the odd day where Fieldglass or some other VMS is not updated properly, but the contractor has proof of work.

I am sure they do and we've seen that on here but in those cases the contractor dunn'd the agent, brought the correct weight to bare and resolved it. This outcome would have been achieved without the opt in/out terminology. The opt in status doesn't really help in situations where payment isn't forthcoming, it's more around getting paid when there are timesheet delays. The whole legislation is really there to protect vulnerable work-seekers, not to resolve business disputes over payment.

Opt in, opt out? What the employment agency regulations are all about

In short, they were introduced to keep the private recruitment industry in line and to protect vulnerable work-seekers,

[RyanDS]

But in reality that clause has never led to anyone getting paid in a dispute.

Coming from the agency side I can tell you this is untrue.

Hasn't happened very often but several times at agencies I have worked at we have ended up paying out. There is always a song and dance, and the agency will take it to the line, but we have backed down several times.

Notably I was at an agency when World Airways went bust. We lost out massively there.

Also often happens the odd day where Fieldglass or some other VMS is not updated properly, but the contractor has proof of work.

[cloudcontractor]

The point I'd rather convey, rather than get into a direct slanging match, is that your rights don't apply themselves. It's a rule of life that applies to everything so whether you learn it in contracting or elsewhere, just better that you do.

For example, I'm almost certain that when you appeal a parking ticket - your local authority's first automatic response will be to reject the appeal you made and force you to either drop it (which I'm sure most do, based on the numbers), or escalate it. The fact most people would drop it doesn't mean it's not worth doing. You've just have to know your rights and push on the principle. It's like you said - the people that have the best success are those that do harangue and harass with conviction.

Going legal might be seen as a nuclear last resort, and when you're testing any law/regulation there will be an element of waiting to see whose nerve cracks first. Again - true of all sorts. Clear cases of wrongful dismissal, sexual discrimination, etc. You still have to fight and they'll still try to wear you down. Don't let them, and we'll turn that 'reality we've seen to date' around.

[northernladuk]

As I've already said, you're dismissive and patronising and approach every thread (literally, don't you have any hobbies?) with a superior attitude. That you might occasionally be helpful appears to be a side-effect of your primary aim to insert your opinion into everything. Jolly tedious.

Yup. Guilty of all that I am afraid. Having ASD doesn't help. Sorry. I'll try harder.

Now, on topic; The Agency Regulations exist for a reason. Should any opted-in contractor find themselves being furthered an excuse of non-settlement because the client hasn't paid the agency, they have recourse and should pursue it. You're entitled to opt-in - wanting to shouldn't 'risk' the process in the least unless the agency is a crook so really this is an excellent filter to apply.

You are entitled to opt-in but an agency is not obliged to deal with Opt in contractors. We've seen it plenty of times and we even asked Bi's (I think) as we thought that was discriminatory. Upshot is it isn't and agencies can refuse to offer opt in gigs if they want. By sticking to opt in gigs only you risk losing gigs over a status which makes very little difference in the real world.

We should discuss situations where a client doesn't pay an agent as that's not straight forward either but it's too long.

So.. , if you do get in this situation where you get in to it with an agent who doesn't want to pay. The only thing you can do is go legal as they won't want to give you their money for nothing. They are probably also aware its unlikely anyone has every been taken to court to enforce opt in status so they will just stone wall you. The only option is go legal which may get some payment out of them where is duely owed or it will rack costs up for you that don't make it worth progressing.
[/quote]
Since many people don't stomp around with ill-placed self-assurance, the dismissive attitude of 'Don't bother, it's never done any good' might be enough to make them not try, and they definitely should. Amazes me how content some contractors are to strictly work within the tulipty system rather than try to improve it with the tools available. All that 'experience' just to have a defeatist attitude.[/QUOTE]

I never said don't bother. I pointed out the reality of the situation as far as we have seen to you are aware it's not quite as good a clause as you think it is. It's not defeatist, it's the reality we've seen to date.

Do you have IPSE+ membership?

Actually, same question to the OP.

[BR14]

As I've already said, you're dismissive and patronising and approach every thread (literally, don't you have any hobbies?) with a superior attitude. That you might occasionally be helpful appears to be a side-effect of your primary aim to insert your opinion into everything. Jolly tedious.



Now, on topic; The Agency Regulations exist for a reason. Should any opted-in contractor find themselves being furthered an excuse of non-settlement because the client hasn't paid the agency, they have recourse and should pursue it. You're entitled to opt-in - wanting to shouldn't 'risk' the process in the least unless the agency is a crook so really this is an excellent filter to apply.

Since many people don't stomp around with ill-placed self-assurance, the dismissive attitude of 'Don't bother, it's never done any good' might be enough to make them not try, and they definitely should. Amazes me how content some contractors are to strictly work within the tulipty system rather than try to improve it with the tools available. All that 'experience' just to have a defeatist attitude.

so why ask then? - sort it out yourself and then tell us all how wonderful you are.
and how big your cat's bolloks are.

[cloudcontractor]

As I've already said, you're dismissive and patronising and approach every thread (literally, don't you have any hobbies?) with a superior attitude. That you might occasionally be helpful appears to be a side-effect of your primary aim to insert your opinion into everything. Jolly tedious.

if you are pushing agents to opt in when they don't want to you adding risk to the engagement process for something that doesn't actually help in reality. Just trying to make you aware of this.

Now, on topic; The Agency Regulations exist for a reason. Should any opted-in contractor find themselves being furthered an excuse of non-settlement because the client hasn't paid the agency, they have recourse and should pursue it. You're entitled to opt-in - wanting to shouldn't 'risk' the process in the least unless the agency is a crook so really this is an excellent filter to apply.

Since many people don't stomp around with ill-placed self-assurance, the dismissive attitude of 'Don't bother, it's never done any good' might be enough to make them not try, and they definitely should. Amazes me how content some contractors are to strictly work within the tulipty system rather than try to improve it with the tools available. All that 'experience' just to have a defeatist attitude.

[northernladuk]

So says the self-appointed authority. Ever consider that your personal experience doesn't cover everyone everywhere across all time? Clearly not.

Nope but it's been discussed on here many times so it's better feedback than trying guess what has happened.

We've plenty of posts about not getting paid from both opt in and out contractors and where the contractor got paid it's usually down to dunning and pestering and correct debt collection processes. Where the agent didn't get paid by the client the contractor didn't get their money. Their status made next to no difference.

Dunno why you are getting so uppity about it anyway, if you are pushing agents to opt in when they don't want to you adding risk to the engagement process for something that doesn't actually help in reality. Just trying to make you aware of this.

I can add 'from the feedback we've seen' in the front of everything if it appease your snowflakess.

[cloudcontractor]

So says the self-appointed authority. Ever consider that your personal experience doesn't cover everyone everywhere across all time? Clearly not.

[northernladuk]

One of the reasons I opt-in to agency regulations. Agency can't use the excuse of not being paid by their client as the reason to not pay you.

But in reality that clause has never led to anyone getting paid in a dispute.

[cloudcontractor]

One of the reasons I opt-in to agency regulations. Agency can't use the excuse of not being paid by their client as the reason to not pay you.

[clearedforlanding]

Ouch. Heard many stories of end clients not paying up but always thought the big agencies were reliable. Good luck feller!

Big agencies often think they are too big to factor their invoices. In a turbulent market this is a risk for the contractor.

The name that shall not be spoken is causing all markets to be turbulent. Expect more of this.

[dogzilla]

Ouch. Heard many stories of end clients not paying up but always thought the big agencies were reliable. Good luck feller!

[GhostofTarbera]

And so it begins.......

Switch to weekly payments immediately then you will only lose 1 weeks (you could claim against your ipse+ insurance) if they go bust




Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[blackfriar]

Contracting through Jefferson Frank and they appear to have a cashflow issue right now. My last invoice payment is a couple of weeks overdue. Agent telling me they held lots of payments back and that they are chasing up to £16m in late payments to them. My client says they have paid the agency on time. I'm assured I'll be paid this week but they told me that last week.

Anyone else having issue or have more info. I'm a tad nervous as are a couple of other contractors here on site.


Thanks